.jpg) |
| I highly recommend this book. Very entertaining. |
As we have discussed the Dirty Hands Problem, I have been
reminded of one of my favorite books that I read last year. This book presents
a number of sets of statistical analysis. The authors of the novel Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and
Stephen J. Dubner, collected data for a number of years in order to creatively
approach many issues in our society. Their more noteworthy example includes
their proclamation that the leading cause of crime prevention is abortion.
Pretty controversial stuff if you ask me. However, the two do not argue on
either side of social, religious, or political aspects. They simply state the
facts and draw relationships and analysis from what they have found.
Although
I do find their most popular example (the relation between abortion and crime
rate) interesting, I will not be explaining this concept. Instead, I will
examine the topic of discussion of their second chapter: “What do
schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common?” Unfortunately, the common
ground between these two seemingly opposite groups is none other than Rousseau’s
“problem with Dirty Hands”.
The
teachers that the two studied taught in the public school systems in Chicago.
If you know anything about the Chicago public school systems, then you know it
is not the most admirable institution. I did not witness first hand these
radical problems since I am from the northern suburbs, but I have seen the
stress it has caused my cousins. Being one of the largest districts,
competition for funding is incomparable. With George Bush’s education plan of
“No Child Left Behind”(*I am not trying to make a claim about politics, I am
simply reporting what the book said*), the schools in Chicago suddenly realized
that their students needed to perform well on their tests or possibly lose some
of their funding. Because of this, the
teachers cheated by changing their student’s test scores. They were so
desperate to maintain school funding, they were willing to risk their integrity
and (for some teachers) their jobs.
 |
| A bit extreme but you get the point. |
In the
same chapter, the economists also touch on the subject of sumo wrestlers. A bit
of background, however, is necessary in order to fully understand how these
Japanese athletes cheated. Sumo
wrestling is drenched in tradition and therefore still clings to very old customs.
For example the upper half on the ranking scale is served and treated by the
lower half. The lower ranked wrestlers are treated much poorer than the
elite wrestlers until the next tournament (this is relevant I promise just stay
with me). In order to be in the top half of the wrestling circle, you must have
a winning record in 15 matches. The economists, therefore, examined the matches
of wrestlers who had a record of 7-7. Here is where the statistics get
interesting. If the wrestler has a 7-7 record and loses, they will put into the
lower tier. In their case, they better hope they are facing a wrestler who
already has a clear clinch of the upper half of rankings. When upper tier
hopefuls wrestle those participants who have clinched their spot, the 7-7
record wrestlers win an astonishing 80%
of the time.
 |
| This sport is just simply mind-blowing. |
This
raises the question, are these sumo wrestlers who are on the bubble simply
performing in the clutch or are their fellow wrestlers simply taking a dive?
There is no true way to prove this since wrestling has huge consequences for
cheating and no one will admit it.
Both of these examples reveal a
theme of "Dirty Hands". In the teacher’s
case, they are clearly doing something wrong but are ultimately helping
themselves, the school, and the children (in a way). Similarly, the sumo wrestlers who
purposefully lost were breaking their code of conducts in order to help their
peers. Rousseau presents the “dirty hands problem” as a theory in which it is
acceptable to do what is seen as morally wrong as long as it benefits the
people. In both of the situations that I have discussed, the “princes”(teachers
and sumo wrestlers) are ultimately helping the people and therefore justify
their actions.
Honestly, I think that what they
did was completely reasonable and needed. However, in today’s society, what
they did is “wrong”. Should the teachers really be punished? I would say “no”
unless what they did was intended just to help their salary or status among
their peers. If the teachers system of cheating helped only the school and
students future education, then I would completely agree with what they did. In
the sumo wrestler’s case, I would also claim that they should not be punished.
Yes, they are technically “cheating” by taking a dive, but I would hope that a
blind eye would be turned in this case.
I only say this because no negative consequence comes from this. To put
it simply it is a win-win.
These two examples seem to be a
perfect example of Rousseau’s “dirty hands problem” and therefore offer an understandable
presentation of his ideas.
Freakonomics citation: Levitt, Steven D., and Stephen J. Dubner. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: William Morrow, 2005. Print.
image URL's:
http://www.grapplersgym.com/public/459.cfm?sd=2
http://billhicksisdead.blogspot.com/2012/06/shame-on-steven-d-levitt-or.html
http://kimberlybrown22.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/political-cartoons-of-no-child-left-behind/
http://katehobbs.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/get-your-hands-dirty/
This is a great post with an interesting example of the dirty hands problem. The teacher example particularly resonates with me. Some teachers do feel like the only solution to their problems is an action that is not morally right. They probably wouldn't change their students test answer if they were in a different situation. Also, teachers felt that changing the test scores was for the greater good because their schools funding wouldn't be reduced, which would hurt the students more in the end.
ReplyDeleteI think its interesting to see why and how we created this situation politically and why we put teachers in this situation. Some argued that No Child Left Behind would create a sense of competition among teachers and schools and would incentivize them to get their students to do better in school. The policy however failed because it didn't give teachers other options, they didn't have enough time or resources to help their students improve. A recent CNN article explains the negative impacts of No Child Left Behind "More money and instructional time is being spent on more complicated and sophisticated tests. The actual education of our students is suffering. Teachers are demoralized; many are leaving the profession." (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/29/teachers.sos.march/index.html)
It's awful that we put our teachers in this situation and we should try to have more foresight when we implement education policies.
This is a very interesting post and a different view from other post I have read. I too come from a school system in Detroit that is usually looked down upon. Their was a situation were our principle was accused of sabatoging our ACT scores and pocketing some of the monies. Knowing how much criticism she was facing she retired the same year. I understand that the teachers want the best for the students, but there are other ways to help them besides cheating. Cheating is not really helping the students in the long run only putting a band-aid over a gun wound. What happends when the students get tested and the teachers cannot assist them. The children will get exposed and the teachers will get exploited. As for the sumo wrestlers , taking a dive should be punished. It takes the nature out of competition when someone does not give it their all. As recently as yesterday David Stern scorned the Spurs for not playing their best players. If they cannot beat you in a match when you are giving your all, they do not deserve the fame. What will happen when that undeserving sumo wrestler faces stiff competition and by record he is supposed to win. He will get demolished and people will question if he was good at all. These examples of "dirty hands" will hardly ever end well for the parties involved.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteI think that your post comes up with interesting cases of the dirty hands problem, but I'm not certain that they both are truly cases of dirty hands. In particular, I'm not sure that the case involving sumo wrestlers meets all of the criteria of dirty hands.
Walzer said that in order for someone to have dirty hands, they must make a moral sacrifice for utilitarian reasons, meaning that their action must provide benefit for the most people possible. In the case of the sumo wrestlers, assuming that the top-tier wrestlers are taking dives, their moral sacrifice (cheating) only helps one wrestler. If the sumo wrestlers were helping a lot of other wrestlers by cheating, they might be considered to have moral hands. However, as you presented it, I don't think they qualify.
What I think is more likely to be a case of dirty hands is the case of the Chicago school teachers. If the teachers are adjusting test scores because they realize that they need to maintain funding in order to properly educate their students, then I think they qualify as having dirty hands. They must be making a moral sacrifice in order to benefit a great number of other people and they must realize that their immoral action, while necessary, is wrong.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteI thought your post relating dirty hands to Freakonomics was great. It was a really good comparison to a real life example that I have heard about a lot as I also grew up in a Chicago suburb. I think that there is a good argument behind the actions of CPS teachers to cheat for students on the standardized testing along with the sumo wrestlers. Yet, I have to disagree with you on the test score teaching being a case of dirty hands. I believe that it is not, and the teachers should be punished. There are multiple reasons behind this.
First off, though it may seem that aiding students on tests will help them to do better, but in reality it does not. It actually hurts students. This is because when it seems as though a students does well on the test, they will not receive the help they need to actually learn. The problems within the actual school and system will not be discovered and corrected if it looks like the students are doing well. Standardized test scores are put in place to identify what areas of the school’s curriculum and teaching system need to be improved. By cheating, this will not be addressed. According to an article on Education Next, To Catch a Cheat, “Students in the cheating classroom experienced relatively large increases in test scores from the previous to the current year (1.7 grade equivalents on average). The following year, however, their scores actually declined. By comparison, students in the typical classroom gained roughly one grade equivalent each year, as expected.” So, students are not being helped when they need it because of cheating teachers.
My second argument is that teachers in the CPS system do in fact determine their salary partly on their students’ standardized test scores, so the incentive to cheat is high for teachers because they can receives raises with better scores. This year the CPS teachers went on strike, fighting over teaching evaluations and job security. According to an NY Times article discussing the compromise made, “The terms, which appeared to provide some victories for both sides, would give annual raises to teachers, lengthen the school day and allow teachers to be evaluated, in part, with student test scores.” So, even with the compromise, teachers are still evaluated by their students test scores. This leads me to believe that standardized test cheating is not an example of dirty hands, as it neither helps the students, nor society, and benefits selfish needs of the teachers.
http://educationnext.org/tocatchacheat/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/vote-scheduled-on-chicago-teachers-contract.html?hp&_r=0